12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 8: Many nutritionists

Question

12 Days of Christmas 🎅 GMAT Competition with Lots of Questions & Fun

Many nutritionists argue that eating a diet rich in fruits and vegetables leads to better overall health compared to a diet high in processed foods. However, a recent study found that residents of Region A, who consume a large amount of processed foods, have a lower incidence of heart disease than those in Region B, where the diet is predominantly fruits and vegetables. Some health experts have concluded from this that a diet high in processed foods does not negatively impact heart health.

The health experts' reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?

(A) It overlooks the possibility that even if residents of Region A switched to a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, they might not experience a significant improvement in heart health.

(B) It confuses a claim that a factor does not negatively impact a condition with the claim that the same factor positively benefits that condition.

(C) It fails to adequately consider that Region A and Region B might differ in significant ways other than dietary habits.

(D) It does not take into account that the incidence of heart disease is not the sole indicator of overall health.

(E) It assumes that the nutritionists' advice must be incorrect despite evidence that appears to contradict that advice.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

GMAT Club's Official Explanation:

(C) It fails to adequately consider that Region A and Region B might differ in significant ways other than dietary habits.
 - This choice points out a critical flaw in the health experts' reasoning. By drawing a conclusion based solely on the comparison between Region A and Region B regarding their dietary habits and incidence of heart disease, the experts may be overlooking other variables or factors that could influence heart health. These could include genetic factors, lifestyle differences, environmental conditions, or healthcare quality in the two regions.

The other options do not as accurately target the reasoning's vulnerability:

(A) It overlooks the possibility that even if residents of Region A switched to a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, they might not experience a significant improvement in heart health.
 - This is more about the potential effects of changing diet and doesn't directly address the flaw in the comparative analysis between the two regions.

(B) It confuses a claim that a factor does not negatively impact a condition with the claim that the same factor positively benefits that condition.
 - While this is a common logical error, the primary issue in the argument is not about confusing the absence of a negative impact with a positive benefit, but rather about making a direct comparison without considering other variables.

(D) It does not take into account that the incidence of heart disease is not the sole indicator of overall health.
 - While true, this doesn't directly address the flaw in the reasoning regarding the comparison made between the two regions and the impact of diet on heart health specifically.

(E) It assumes that the nutritionists' advice must be incorrect despite evidence that appears to contradict that advice.
 - This choice addresses the contradiction but doesn't specifically highlight the potential oversight of other differing factors between the regions, which is the core issue in the reasoning.

Therefore, (C) is the best choice as it directly addresses the potential oversight in the comparative analysis conducted by the health experts.

vishal_gupta · Answer

Many nutritionists argue that eating a diet rich in fruits and vegetables leads to better overall health compared to a diet high in processed foods. However, a recent study found that residents of Region A, who consume a large amount of processed foods, have a lower incidence of heart disease than those in Region B, where the diet is predominantly fruits and vegetables. Some health experts have concluded from this that a diet high in processed foods does not negatively impact heart health.

The health experts' reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?

(A) It overlooks the possibility that even if residents of Region A switched to a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, they might not experience a significant improvement in heart health. (This is not criticism of the conclusion made. This is criticism of nutritionists claim which we don't need to find.)

(B) It confuses a claim that a factor does not negatively impact a condition with the claim that the same factor positively benefits that condition. (The conclusion doesn't correlates the mentioned claims.)

(C) It fails to adequately consider that Region A and Region B might differ in significant ways other than dietary habits. -->This is the alternative cause, because It mentions that the reason for the no impact negative on heart health is not the high PF but are other factors.

(D) It does not take into account that the incidence of heart disease is not the sole indicator of overall health. (Close. But C is better choice.)

(E) It assumes that the nutritionists' advice must be incorrect despite evidence that appears to contradict that advice. (Irrelevant.)

juancarlos12 · Answer

Many nutritionists argue that eating a diet rich in fruits and vegetables leads to better overall health compared to a diet high in processed foods. However, a recent study found that residents of Region A, who consume a large amount of processed foods, have a lower incidence of heart disease than those in Region B, where the diet is predominantly fruits and vegetables. Some health experts have concluded from this that a diet high in processed foods does not negatively impact heart health.

The health experts' reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?

Conclusion: Some health experts have concluded from this that a diet high in processed foods does not negatively impact heart health.
 
 Type of question: Causality in Weaken question. So, the alternative cause weakens the conclusion,

Conclusion: High PF --> No impact negat. Heart Health.
  
(A) It overlooks the possibility that even if residents of Region A switched to a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, they might not experience a significant improvement in heart health.  -->Does not affect the conclusion

(B) It confuses a claim that a factor does not negatively impact a condition with the claim that the same factor positively benefits that condition.  -->Does not affect the conclusion

(C) It fails to adequately consider that Region A and Region B might differ in significant ways other than dietary habits.  -->This is the alternative cause, because It mentions that the reason for the no impact negative on heart health is not the high PF but are other factors. 
 
(D) It does not take into account that the incidence of heart disease is not the sole indicator of overall health.

(E) It assumes that the nutritionists' advice must be incorrect despite evidence that appears to contradict that advice.-->Does not affect the conclusion

Right answer: C

DG1989 · Answer

Many nutritionists argue that eating a diet rich in fruits and vegetables leads to better overall health compared to a diet high in processed foods. However, a recent study found that residents of Region A, who consume a large amount of processed foods, have a lower incidence of heart disease than those in Region B, where the diet is predominantly fruits and vegetables. Some health experts have concluded from this that a diet high in processed foods does not negatively impact heart health.

The health experts' reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?

(A) It overlooks the possibility that even if residents of Region A switched to a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, they might not experience a significant improvement in heart health.
  Explanation:   This option doesn't necessarily weaken the conclusion that processed foods don't negatively impact heart health in this specific population. Even if changing their diet to fruits and vegetables wouldn't improve their heart health significantly, it doesn't mean processed foods aren't a risk factor elsewhere.   INCORRECT

(B) It confuses a claim that a factor does not negatively impact a condition with the claim that the same factor positively benefits that condition.
  Explanation:   This option is not the most critical flaw in the reasoning. The experts didn't claim that processed foods benefit heart health, just that they don't necessarily harm it in this case.   INCORRECT

(C) It fails to adequately consider that Region A and Region B might differ in significant ways other than dietary habits.
  Explanation:   This option correctly highlights the failure of health expert's to consider other potential differences between the two regions that could explain the lower heart disease in Region A despite their processed food consumption.   CORRECT

(D) It does not take into account that the incidence of heart disease is not the sole indicator of overall health.
  Explanation:   This option talks about overall health while the focus is on the heart health.   INCORRECT

(E) It assumes that the nutritionists' advice must be incorrect despite evidence that appears to contradict that advice.
  Explanation:   This option introduces the possibility of a biased dismissal of the study, whereas the criticism should focus on its limitations within the context of available findings.   INCORRECT

Option C   is the right answer.

missionmba2025 · Answer

(A) It overlooks the possibility that even if residents of Region A switched to a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, they might not experience a significant improvement in heart health.

While it's true that even a dietary change might not guarantee improved heart health, it doesn't explain the existing difference between the two regions. Eliminate

(B) It confuses a claim that a factor does not negatively impact a condition with the claim that the same factor positively benefits that condition.

The claim isn't about a positive benefit of processed foods, but rather a lack of negative impact on heart health. Eliminate

(C) It fails to adequately consider that Region A and Region B might differ in significant ways other than dietary habits.

Correct, Health experts haven't adequately considered the possibility that other factors, besides diet, could be influencing the observed differences in heart disease rates.

(D) It does not take into account that the incidence of heart disease is not the sole indicator of overall health.

The statement doesn't explain the discrepancy observed. Eliminate

(E) It assumes that the nutritionists' advice must be incorrect despite evidence that appears to contradict that advice.

The experts aren't dismissing the nutritionists' advice entirely, but questioning its applicability in this specific case. Eliminate.

IMO C

Elite097 · Answer

Many nutritionists argue that eating a diet rich in fruits and vegetables leads to better overall health compared to a diet high in processed foods. However, a recent study found that residents of Region A, who consume a large amount of processed foods, have a lower incidence of heart disease than those in Region B, where the diet is predominantly fruits and vegetables. Some health experts have concluded from this that a diet high in processed foods does not negatively impact heart health.

The health experts' reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?

(A) It overlooks the possibility that even if residents of Region A switched to a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, they might not experience a significant improvement in heart health.
We are not trying to show improvement through diet rich in fruits and veg hence this cant be a flaw

(B) It confuses a claim that a factor does not negatively impact a condition with the claim that the same factor positively benefits that condition.
This extrapolation has not been made by experts

(C) It fails to adequately consider that Region A and Region B might differ in significant ways other than dietary habits. -->This is the alternative cause, because It mentions that the reason for the no impact negative on heart health is not the high PF but are other factors.

(D) It does not take into account that the incidence of heart disease is not the sole indicator of overall health.
The experts have not made any implication for overall health based on heart health

(E) It assumes that the nutritionists' advice must be incorrect despite evidence that appears to contradict that advice.
In fact the evidence would support that nutritionists advice is incorrect

Ans C

Kinshook · Answer

Many nutritionists argue that eating a diet rich in fruits and vegetables leads to better overall health compared to a diet high in processed foods. However, a recent study found that residents of Region A, who consume a large amount of processed foods, have a lower incidence of heart disease than those in Region B, where the diet is predominantly fruits and vegetables.

Health Experts'Conclusion:  Some health experts have concluded from this that a diet high in processed foods does not negatively impact heart health.

The health experts' reasoning is  most vulnerable to criticism  on which of the following grounds?

It overlooks the possibility that even if residents of Region A switched to a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, they might  not  experience a significant improvement in heart health.
If  not  could have been not present, the statement could have provided criticism to health experts' reasoning.
Incorrect

Some health experts' conclued that a diet high in processed foods does not negatively impact heart health since the residents of Region A, who consume a large amount of processed foods, have a lower incidence of heart disease than those in Region B, where the diet is predominantly fruits and vegetables. 
Which is correct reasoning.
Incorrect

It fails to adequately consider that Region A and Region B might differ in significant ways other than dietary habits since there may be other factors other than dietary habits alone that may impact incidence of heart disease in these regions. It may be possible that incidences of heart disease may be further lowered in region A by switching to diet consisting of predominantly fruits and vegetables.
Correct

A recent study found that residents of Region A, who consume a large amount of processed foods, have a lower incidence of  heart disease  than those in Region B, where the diet is predominantly fruits and vegetables. Some health experts have concluded from this that a diet high in processed foods does not negatively impact  heart health .
The heatlh experts's reasoning is all about heart health only.
Incorrect

The nutritionists' advice is about  overall health  but the evidence is about  heart health  alone. The evidence does not contradict the nutritionists' advice.
Incorrect

IMO C

Catman · Answer

(A) It overlooks the possibility that even if residents of Region A switched to a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, they might not experience a significant improvement in heart health.  ~ It is the argument of nutritionist, This confirms that switching diet does not lead to significant improvement in health.

(B) It confuses a claim that a factor does not negatively impact a condition with the claim that the same factor positively benefits that condition.  ~ The conclusion is different from the claim. Nutritionist do not confuses the two claims.

(C) It fails to adequately consider that Region A and Region B might differ in significant ways other than dietary habits.  ~ Correct, This introduces the possibility that there may be other factors other than Dietary habits which is responsible for the conclusion. 
 
(D) It does not take into account that the incidence of heart disease is not the sole indicator of overall health.  ~ The argument is not that " Heart disease is the sole indicator of overall health"

(E) It assumes that the nutritionists' advice must be incorrect despite evidence that appears to contradict that advice.  ~ This is not the advice given by the nutritionsits.

IMO C

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 8: Many nutritionists

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 8: Many nutritionists

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards